No, no, it's not harsh -- I would probably say/write the same if Turbine was
my baby. I realize that things went wrong regarding Jetspeed's use of
Turbine. On the other hand, you can't expect a bunch of reasonably new
people to revise the whole usage in a few days. Many of the (wrong) usages
have evolved and "matured" over time. Certainly, new wrong usages shouldn't
be introduced, but as Raphael pointed out this is only temporary change to
make life easy for now.
I am not a committer but second the steps Raphael has undertaken.
Cheers,
Thomas
----- Original Message -----
From: "Jon Stevens" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "JetSpeed" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Wednesday, November 15, 2000 08:17
Subject: Re: CVS Clean up, Part 1: Initialization and Properties
> on 11/14/2000 11:03 PM, "Thomas Boehme" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
> > Jon,
> >
> > subclassing and extending functionality (thereby specializing the
behaviour)
> > is standard practice in OO development. I would think you know that.
>
> Of course I know that.
>
> > If you
> > believe that the Turbine framework does not require the Turbine servlet
to
> > be subclassed then make it a final class.
>
> Already done.
>
> > I have personally verified that super.init () is being called, so that's
not
> > a problem. To me all the things that Raphael put into the
JetspeedServlet
> > make perfectly sense.
>
> Actually, they don't as they don't fall within the way that the framework
> should be used. My major problem with Jetspeed is that many of the things
> that it does within Turbine are not done correctly and these recent
> overriding Turbine.java changes only compound that fact. I expressed my
> views on this at ApacheCon to a room full of people.
>
> If Jetspeed had been a success and people could rely on the code without
> posting 900 emails about how to configure it and various other major
design
> problems with it, then that would have been one thing, but I had to spend
a
> whole bunch of time at ApacheCon telling people that just because Jetspeed
> doesn't work properly, it isn't a bad reflection on Turbine's code. I'm
> sorry, but I'm tired of that and so far, Jetspeed hasn't even begun to
live
> up to Apache release quality code. It shouldn't be 1.2, it should be 1.0a1
> or not even released yet.
>
> Sorry to be harsh, but that is what has happened with this project IMHO.
>
> -jon
>
> --
> twice of not very much is still a lot more than not very much
>
>
>
> --
> --------------------------------------------------------------
> Please read the FAQ! <http://java.apache.org/faq/>
> To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Archives and Other: <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jetspeed>
> Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
>
--
--------------------------------------------------------------
Please read the FAQ! <http://java.apache.org/faq/>
To subscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To unsubscribe: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Archives and Other: <http://marc.theaimsgroup.com/?l=jetspeed>
Problems?: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
